Chamber
Plenary, 12 Feb 2003
12 Feb 2003 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Protection of Children (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
During stage 2, in response to my moving of an amendment, the minister made a commitment to reconsider the issue. I am grateful that she has returned with a solution.
The issue is particularly important in the context of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Bill. As the bill is based not on legal convictions, but on tribunals and decisions by employing authorities, it is possible that an allegation that is made might result in legal action against the person who makes the allegation. Amendment 9 moves us forward.
I hope that amendment 9 also sets a legislative precedent for tackling the difficulties that have arisen in the case in Dumfries of Michael MacKinnon, whose appeal in relation to a complaint that he had made on a teaching matter failed yesterday. I do not want to go into the merits or otherwise of that case, which many people still believe in strongly. It is vital to ensure that young people and their parents who come forward do not become the subjects of legal action on the ground of malicious allegation if the accusations that they have made are believed by the organisation that goes on to take proceedings. That is the key issue.
Malicious allegations should always be acted against but, if a body—in the case of Michael MacKinnon, a local authority—accepts certain allegations and, on the basis of those allegations, takes action, the individual who made the allegations should not find themselves in a difficult position.
I am grateful that amendment 9 represents a small initial step on that general issue. I hope that the minister will consider returning to the issue. We will return to the issue of providing additional privilege in those very special cases. Although we do not want to protect people who make malicious allegations from the consequences of their actions, if allegations are believed by a body that goes on to take action, the responsibility for those actions should devolve on that body, not on the individual who made the allegations. Amendment 9 takes us a step forward. In the context of the bill, it does exactly the right thing. I am grateful to the minister for lodging the amendment.
The issue is particularly important in the context of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Bill. As the bill is based not on legal convictions, but on tribunals and decisions by employing authorities, it is possible that an allegation that is made might result in legal action against the person who makes the allegation. Amendment 9 moves us forward.
I hope that amendment 9 also sets a legislative precedent for tackling the difficulties that have arisen in the case in Dumfries of Michael MacKinnon, whose appeal in relation to a complaint that he had made on a teaching matter failed yesterday. I do not want to go into the merits or otherwise of that case, which many people still believe in strongly. It is vital to ensure that young people and their parents who come forward do not become the subjects of legal action on the ground of malicious allegation if the accusations that they have made are believed by the organisation that goes on to take proceedings. That is the key issue.
Malicious allegations should always be acted against but, if a body—in the case of Michael MacKinnon, a local authority—accepts certain allegations and, on the basis of those allegations, takes action, the individual who made the allegations should not find themselves in a difficult position.
I am grateful that amendment 9 represents a small initial step on that general issue. I hope that the minister will consider returning to the issue. We will return to the issue of providing additional privilege in those very special cases. Although we do not want to protect people who make malicious allegations from the consequences of their actions, if allegations are believed by a body that goes on to take action, the responsibility for those actions should devolve on that body, not on the individual who made the allegations. Amendment 9 takes us a step forward. In the context of the bill, it does exactly the right thing. I am grateful to the minister for lodging the amendment.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr Murray Tosh):
Con
We now come to stage 3 proceedings on the Protection of Children (Scotland) Bill. Members will need copies of the bill, the marshalled list and the groupings...
Section 3—Reference by employmentagency etc
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
The first group of amendments relates to the duty to make a referral. Amendment 1 is grouped with amendment 2.
The Minister for Education and Young People (Cathy Jamieson):
Lab
Amendments 1 and 2 will extend the duty to make referrals to employment businesses. That duty will be backed up by the offence that all organisations will co...
Irene McGugan (North-East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I am not rising to speak against amendment 1. In fact, the SNP will not oppose any of the amendments that have been lodged at stage 3.The stage 2 amendment t...
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
I welcome Irene McGugan's commitment that the SNP will support the amendments that have been lodged. I hope that that is an example of good practice, because...
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—Cathy Jamieson—and agreed to.
Section 7—Provisional inclusion in list
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
The second group of amendments is on the extension of provisional listing. Amendment 3 is in a group on its own.
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
Amendment 3 will allow ministers to apply to the sheriff for an extension to the six-month limit on provisional listing. The sheriff would be able to grant a...
Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I am grateful to the minister for moving amendment 3. I moved a large number of amendments at stage 2 and the amendment to which she referred is the only one...
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
We, too, support amendment 3. We supported Mike Russell's amendment at stage 2 to remove provisional listing, but we are content that limiting it to one peri...
Ian Jenkins (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
LD
I endorse the comments of the two previous speakers and I thank the minister for taking note of the committee's feelings. As the minister knows, I am hesitan...
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
I thank members for their support for amendment 3. I acknowledge the concerns about provisional listing that were expressed during stage 1 and stage 2. We mu...
Amendment 3 agreed to.
After section 8
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
The third group of amendments deals with protection from defamation. Amendment 9 is in a group on its own.
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
Amendment 9 seeks to clarify the laws on defamation as they apply to the bill. Any information that is submitted with a reference for inclusion in the list o...
Michael Russell:
SNP
During stage 2, in response to my moving of an amendment, the minister made a commitment to reconsider the issue. I am grateful that she has returned with a ...
Ian Jenkins:
LD
I support Michael Russell's position. The situation to which he referred is a difficult one. The arguments that Michael Russell has made are worthy of consid...
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this point in time on the case that Michael Russell mentioned.During stage 2 consideration of the bill, I ga...
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Section 11—Searches of lists: amendment of Police Act 1997
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
Amendment 4 is grouped with amendments 7 and 8.
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
Amendments 4, 7 and 8 are technical amendments, which are consequential on the Education Act 2002.Amendment 4 is a minor amendment, which would make it clear...
Amendment 4 agreed to.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
Amendment 5 is grouped with amendment 6.
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
Amendment 5 is a minor drafting adjustment, which will correct an error that has been noted in the amendments made to the Police Act 1997.Amendment 6 will re...
Amendment 5 agreed to.